Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: file URLs expire in 60 minutes, signer_log provides an audit trail, and download_pdf returns the PDF log. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a structured list of actions and filters, which is efficient. The 'Flattened action: get' note is a bit cryptic but adds clarity about the active action. No wasted words, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, 3 actions) and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the main behaviors: listing with filters, getting details with expiring URLs, and signer log with PDF download. It doesn't explain return values in detail, but that's acceptable without an output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively, though it could mention the 'account' parameter and clarify the flattened action concept.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain many parameters (page, status, folder_path, deleted, signer_email, created_from/to, sort_order, include_signers, doc_token, download_pdf) but not all (account is missing). The description adds meaning to most parameters, but the 'account' parameter is undocumented, and the description doesn't clarify value formats (e.g., date format for created_from/to is mentioned as YYYY-MM-DD, which is good). Overall, it covers most but not all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states this is for reading ZapSign signature documents and lists three actions: list, get, and signer_log. It distinguishes from siblings by naming specific actions and filters, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with zapsign_documents_list or zapsign_documents_signer_log, which are separate sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit filter options and action parameters, giving clear context on how to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the action list and filters imply usage scenarios. The flattened action note clarifies that 'get' is the active action, which helps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.